Simpler fix for credentials with characters such as '/'.

[dmitshur]

Thanks for describing the problem in great detail in PR #39 @opalmer.

I suspect there may be a much simpler fix, which I'd like to discuss. Consider this comment:

go-gerrit/gerrit.go

Lines 101 to 104 in 70bbb05

	// Depending on the contents of the username and password the default
	// url.Parse may not work. The below is an example URL that
	// would end up being parsed incorrectly with url.Parse:
	// http://admin:ZOSOKjgV/kgEkN0bzPJp+oGeJLqpXykqWFJpon/Ckg@localhost:38607

If I'm not mistaken, that URL gets parsed correctly by url.Parse. It's just that the URL itself is not correctly escaped, so it doesn't produce the results you want.

Let's use url.URL.String method to construct a URL with "http" schema, "admin" username, "ZOSOKjgV/kgEkN0bzPJp+oGeJLqpXykqWFJpon/Ckg" password, and "localhost:38607" host:

u := &url.URL{
	Scheme: "http",
	User:   url.UserPassword("admin", "ZOSOKjgV/kgEkN0bzPJp+oGeJLqpXykqWFJpon/Ckg"),
	Host:   "localhost:38607",
}
fmt.Println(u.String())

// Output: http://admin:ZOSOKjgV%2FkgEkN0bzPJp+oGeJLqpXykqWFJpon%2FCkg@localhost:38607

(See on playground: https://play.golang.org/p/M3cq7xWI2eE.)

Note that the / character in the password gets escaped to %2F.

When we parse that URL with url.Parse, it produces the expected results:

u, err := url.Parse("http://admin:ZOSOKjgV%2FkgEkN0bzPJp+oGeJLqpXykqWFJpon%2FCkg@localhost:38607")
if err != nil {
	log.Fatalln(err)
}
fmt.Println(u.Scheme)
fmt.Println(u.User.Username())
fmt.Println(u.User.Password())
fmt.Println(u.Host)

// Output:
// http
// admin
// ZOSOKjgV/kgEkN0bzPJp+oGeJLqpXykqWFJpon/Ckg true
// localhost:38607

(See on playground: https://play.golang.org/p/01GMpYMMzsw.)

Notably, the original "ZOSOKjgV/kgEkN0bzPJp+oGeJLqpXykqWFJpon/Ckg" password is preserved.

So, I believe as long as the URL is correctly escaped, the logic added in #39 isn't needed and can be reverted. That would simplify the code. What do you think @opalmer?

[andygrunwald]

Really good catch.
From the first glance, I am with @shurcooL here. His reasoning seems to be valid.
Lets wait for @opalmer opinion.

[opalmer]

Agreed with @andygrunwald, nice catch! I'm all for simplifying the code and would support a PR to fix this too.

Last I remember there are some specific tests that will need to be updated or removed to reflect the change you're making. You probably should also consider adding some tests specifically to make sure that http basic auth works properly with your change.